An Analysis of
Tiebreak Options - Old and New - and Proposal for Improved Tournament Playoff
Regulations.

"Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it."-Mark Twain

Much the same can be said about chess issues. The recent
controversy over the final playoff game of the 2008 U.S. Women's Championship
showed that, although there is no shortage of opinions, there are very few
actual guidelines for organizers on how to break ties in a chess tournament.

As Chief Organizer of those championships, I not only read
with interest the voluminous online commentary on the issue, but also received
a lot of emails from top players about it.

For example, GM Joel Benjamin wrote, "The
criticism directed at the U.S. Championship organization for the unfortunate
events of the Armageddon playoff is ridiculous and overblown. People may
not like what happened, but the playoff procedure was fairly standard and
spelled out for the players, despite the contentions of many Internet
‘commentators'." This contrasted sharply with many of the online
statements, which flatly declared the playoff method was "boneheaded,"
"degrading," or "demeaning to chess."

I began to wonder, "What
actually is the theory of playoffs?
What system of breaking ties is the most suitable for chess?" Surely
playoffs are a relatively straightforward thing, and should be no great
mystery, even if they are fairly awkward due to the peculiarities ofchess. So I contacted several top players and tournament
directors to investigate these issues, and researched the rules and regulations
for this article. Responders included a mix of players, organizers and TDs: GMs
Joel Benjamin, Yasser Seirawan, Sergey Kudrin, IMs John Donaldson, Larry
Kaufman and Greg Shahade as well as TDs Mike Atkins, Frank Berry, Bill
Goichberg, Stewart Reuben, and others.

This article aims to
analyze the current chaotic situation - keeping
in mind the needs of players, organizers, and sponsors - and come to some
conclusions. The goal is to do more than
just generate more rounds of endless Internet debate -but instead to actually move the debate forward toward some positive
action.

First, to make the underlying "theory" easy to understand, I
start with some general comments and then review in detail the various options
for how to handle playoffs that have been proposed, discussing each in turn and
listing their pros and cons:

After that, we have some conclusions, and then a proposal for chess playoff guidelines
featuring the best elements of the above options.

The Need to
Break Ties

All sports have a need to break ties, at least at certain
times. Some sports do it more elegantly than others. The "tiebreaker" in tennis
is well regarded, for example (even though it was derided when first proposed).
In soccer (football), the use of penalty kick "shootouts" is the approved
method, though not liked by purists.
Sometimes tiebreaks can be especially exciting and popular,
such as the playoff between Tiger Woods and Rocco Mediate at the 2008 U.S. Open
in golf.

Chess has a special
disadvantagewhen it comes to
breaking ties, due not only to the possibility of drawn games but also to
the asymmetrical nature of the game caused by the advantage of playing white,
which leads to the awkward need to play sets of two playoff games to balance it.

Current Regulations

Perhaps surprisingly, neither the USCF nor the FIDE
tournament rules have much to say about playoffs. There is a lot of information
about mathematical tiebreak methods, but both
rulebooks imply that a playoff of some sort is to be preferred if time allows.
Yet actual recommendations for how such playoffs would work are scant.

The USCF rules ,
when discussing the breaking of ties (34.A), state, "In other events where time
is not pressing, playoffs provide a better alternative to traditional tie-break
systems. Playoffs are often conducted at a faster time control than the
tournament, even five-minute games have been used." That is about it. There is
also rule 34.E12, which is similarly vague:"The speed play-off, an exciting way to wind up a tournament, has been
used as the first tie-break to determine the title at several major events."

The FIDE
tournament rules have an annex that discusses the breaking of ties. The section on playoffs specifies a few obvious things such as the system must
be announced in advance and should be controlled an arbiter, etc., but the
guidelines listed for how a playoff should actually work are only this:

"6(k) The following is an
example where time for playoff is somewhat limited.

1. If two people tie for
first:

(a) They play a two game
mini-match at the rate of all the moves in 3 minutes add-on 5 seconds for each
move from the first. If this match is tied:

(b) They play a one game
Armageddon (sudden death), White has 5 minutes and Black four, in the case of a
draw Black wins first prize."

After
discussing variations on this scheme when dealing with multi-player ties the
FIDE rules add:

12. Where only two players are involved in the
playoff, if time permits, they may play at a slower rate of play by agreement
with the CA and CO. If the original games run very late, the playoff may
go straight to Armageddon.

So, contrary to the many online commentators who were
certain that the use of an Armageddon blitz game as the fifth playoff game in
the 2008 U.S. Women's Championship was an unprecedented "abomination," it can
be seen that the FIDE guidelines are similar and require much less. (More on
the appropriateness of blitz playoffs below.)

In any case, for both USCF and FIDE, these rather sparse
guidelines seem inadequate for such an important aspect of tournament chess.

In my 20-year career as a professional game designer I wrote
rules and regulations for dozens of commercial games. It can be deceptively
tricky. "Rules lawyers" and critics pick every word or phrase apart. Clearly, the writers of the
playoff regulations quoted above wanted to avoid being too specific, as too
much detail might prove to be inflexible and impractical for organizers in some
circumstances.

However, it should be possible to elucidate some useful
guidelines without being overly detailed, because other sports do it
successfully. The trick is to outline recommendations relative to the variable
factors (time, goals, etc.); including when to settle for co-champions, when to
use math tiebreaks, when to use playoffs, etc.

The example of golf
provides an excellent comparison in this regard, and in view of the analysis of
the options (below) it is clear that something similar could be done for chess.
I quote how they do it here. Note how clear it is, without being inflexible,
even though there are several different types of golf events (stroke or match
play, handicaps, etc.).

From the Rules of Golf (PGA):

11. How to
Decide Ties

In both match play and stroke play, a tie can
be an acceptable result. However, when it is desired to have a sole winner, the
Committee [what we call the
Organizers-TB] has the authority, under Rule 33-6, to determine how and when a tie is decided. The
decision should be published in advance.

The USGA recommends:

Match Play

A match that ends all square should be played
off hole by hole until one Side wins a hole. The play-off
should start on the hole where the match began. In a handicap match, handicap
strokes should be allowed as in the stipulated round.

Stroke Play

(a) In the event of a tie in a scratch
stroke-play competition, a play-off is recommended. The play-off may be over 18
holes or a smaller number of holes as specified by the Committee. If that is not feasible or
there is still a tie, a hole-by-hole play-off is recommended. ...

(c) If a play-off of any type is not feasible,
matching scorecards is recommended. The method of matching cards should be
announced in advance and should also provide what will happen if this procedure
does not produce a winner. An acceptable method of matching the cards is to
determine the winner on the basis of the best score for the last nine holes. If
the tying players have the same score for the last nine, determine the winner
on the basis of the last six holes, last three holes and finally the 18th hole.
...

Their method is very clear to understand. It goes from ideal
forms to more and more abbreviated forms relative to circumstances. If there is
a tie, and if you want to have a sole winner, use a long playoff. If there
isn't time for that, use shorter playoff or a hole-by-hole playoff. (These
translate to full-length playoff games as compared to rapid or blitz playoff
games in chess). If there isn't time for playoffs at all, use "matching score
cards" to break the tie. (This is comparable to mathematical tiebreaks in
chess.)

Please also note that these guidelines are clearly labeled
"recommendations." They are not absolute, and allow (as is necessary) an
organizer to do something different as circumstance may require (as long as it
is announced in advance). In that case,
however, players and observers have these guidelines to help evaluate the
fairness of any other tiebreak method the organizer wants to use.

Golf has several things in common with
chess, and their method of dealing with tiebreak issues makes a useful
comparison. Below I use a similar method to propose a set of guidelines
specific to chess.

But first, let's analyze the many different proposals chess
has had for breaking ties - or even the question of if ties need to be broken
at all. There is a wide variety of opinions on all this.

"I like the old days when they would just be co-champions."
(GM John Fedorowicz). This simple solution is advocated by many commentators,
who point out producing a winner is a social convention that may not be
necessary.

Pro - If a tie is
an acceptable result, there is no reason to break it. This approach has big
advantages in time, simplicity, and fairness.

Con -
Unfortunately, it won't work in all cases. For example, it won't work:

a.When one player is scheduled to qualify from this event for a future competition, such as earning a
spot on the Olympiad team. A method to break a tie in such a case is required.

b.When the public demands a champion
- i.e., a world championship match, or any "championship" from national down to
state or city levels which are desired to produce a clear winner for whatever
reason.

c.When a sponsor
won't abide what it might consider a ‘dud' result and wants a winner
determined. Facetious example: CEO ofCoca-Cola: "We have your chess
sponsorship check here for $1 million, but there's just one thing. We don't
like your idea of allowing co-champions. Our P.R. Department wants you to
determine a clear winner." ChessOrganizer: "Sorry, no thanks then.
That's a deal-breaker. Chess commentators think co-champions is the way to go."

Conclusion - As
GM Benjamin, IM Donaldson, and TD Mike Atkins (and others) point out, if
co-champions are acceptable it should be the preferred method of dealing with a
tie. Therefore the proposal below will list it as the "first choice" option.
However, it is not a complete solution by itself.

2)Mathematical Tiebreaks -
"If there must be a winner, mathematical tiebreak points are more fair than a
playoff."

Math tiebreaks are often used, with the idea that their
inherent logic tends to reward the player who played the more difficult
schedule. "Why shouldn't the player who faces the stronger field
be rewarded?" says Donaldson, adding that, "this might have more
integrity than some form of rapid/blitz playoffs."

Pro -Simplicity and speed again favor this
system over playoffs. Another nice advantage is that they efficiently handle
multiple ties (3 or more players). The most popular tiebreak formats can
generate instant results directly from the computer used to make Swiss
pairings. Often players can estimate their tiebreaks before playing the last
round and know from this whether or not they must play for a win.

GM Sergey Kudrin thinks math tiebreaks especially make sense
in breaking ties further down the crosstable or in situations where there are
multiple qualification spots up for grabs. He said, "I will distinguish between a Championship,
where playoff might be desirable, and spots down the line. If we have 5 spots
in the World Cup, I would not use playoff for those." For example, at the 2008
Frank K. Berry U.S. Championship Qualifier Open, there were seven slots in the
U.S. Championship available in a 7-round Swiss. Four players tied for first,
each winning a slot. Six people tied for the remaining three slots. These slots
were decided by mathematical tiebreaks. But can you imagine trying to have
playoffs to determine three winners from six players? It would be awkward and
time-consuming

Con - First, it
is worth noting that both the FIDE and the USCF rules, as sparse as they are,
imply that a playoff - even a blitz playoff - is preferable to a mathematical
tiebreak. This seems to be the opinion of many top players. GM Joel Benjamin: "If a tie must be
broken, tiebreaks are much worse than a playoff(even in a Swiss). It may be okay to use tiebreaks to
determine who gets a trophy, but not who gets the U.S. Championship
title. If there is a multiple tie, you can use tiebreaks to whittle down
to the top two for a playoff. Tiebreaks are ridiculous to even
contemplate in a round-robin, when everyone plays the same field."

Although fine for many applications, math tiebreaks won't
work well for all forms of chess events, and their underlying logic has been
the subject of much debate.

·They don't work at all for a match. Nor do they work
for "elimination" formats with "Finals" events such as many of the recent U.S.
Championships. They don't work well for an event in which two people have
perfect scores, which often happens in big scholastic events.

·They are dubious for round robin events, where the
logic of why one certain type of score is given more weight than another is
pretty flimsy, even for the common Sonnenborn-Berger system. (However, I should
note that IM Greg Shahade has been developing some innovative new tiebreak
systems for round robins.)

·Because the player has little control over the outcome
of math tiebreak, it can lead to a feeling of helplessness and dissatisfaction
as profound in its way as blitz playoff games have been accused of being. For
example, in a typical state championship 6-round Swiss a characteristic problem
is this: Players A and B tie for first place with 5½ points, drawing with each
other and beating all their other opponents. Player A played the highest-rated
player in round 3 and won, but that player, discouraged by his loss, dropped
out of the tournament, thus screwing up Player A's tiebreaks. So B wins. Such
things often seem like an unfair result, especially given the luck factor
inherent in Swiss pairings to begin with.

·There are even more typical criticisms of math
tiebreaks, which I will leave for another day. And it is worth noting that FIDE
and USCF vary quite a bit on recommended tiebreak priorities to be used.

Conclusion -
Though tiebreaks are functional for certain events they won't work for all
cases, and thus are not a complete solution. Math tiebreaks are certainly a
good option if there is no time for any playoffs, or for multiple qualification
spots. However, most players, and indeed also the existing regulations, both
prefer a playoff if time is available.

3)Chance Tiebreaks -
"If there must be a winner, a method of chance is more fair than crazy
rapid/blitz games."

Several commentators hate the spectacle of a time so much
that they actually propose flipping a coin instead. Advocates of this idea
believe that long playoffs are fine, but that chance would be fairer than
rapid/blitz playoffs.

Pro -
Chance-based tiebreaks have the advantage of being completely fair (in the
sense that the odds of winning are equal). The argument here is that
rapid/blitz playoffs involve a type of chess skill that is different from
full-length tournament chess skill. A "blitz specialist" like Nakamura, for
instance, has somewhat of an edge in blitz playoffs that he might not
necessarily have in normal tournament play. Thus playoffs at a different time
control than the tournament itself may have unfairness built in. Donaldson
points out, "I remember an AF4C championship [in 2000] where
Benjamin, Seirawan and Shabalov tied for first and five minute games were used
to break the tie. Joel and Yasser were blitz specialists and Shabba knew going
in his chances were much smaller than in regular chess. The final result
confirmed it."

Con -A nearly
universal principle in sports is that their tiebreaks are at least in some way
related to the sport in some abbreviated fashion. Back in 1983 pure chance was
used for a World Championship Candidates Match between Smyslov and Hubner. The
tie was broken with a spin of the roulette wheel! There was naturally much
criticism of the "absurdity" of this solution. Imagine if the Internet
discussion boards had been around then! Our own GM Susan Polgar lost a Women's
World Championship Candidates Match to Nana Ioseliani in a similar way. The two
rapid playoffs were split, but an arcane rule stated that the match would be
decided by lottery- Ioseliani won only to be crushed by Xie Jun in the World
Championship match.

Conclusion - The
current USCF and FIDE rules make no mention of chance playoffs. It would seem
to be an organizer's last resort - if there were no time for playoffs and if
math tiebreaks do not resolve the tie (a rare possibility).

4)Full-Length Playoffs -
"Full-length playoffs are the best solution if a tie must be broken. Organizers
should set aside the time and money for a proper playoff if one is necessary."

Many Internet commentators stated that the only
appropriate form of playoff is one that is played at about the same rate as the
tournament itself, as compared to using rapid or blitz. "Blitz is
different than regular slow chess," says TD Mike Atkins, an expert on blitz
event organization. "Managing the clock is at least 50% of the game in blitz, a
much higher percentage than slow chess, and why it is called Blitz. Just the
name conjures up images of lightning strikes in war..."

Pro - In terms of
fairness, a full-length playoff logically uses the same player skills that were
being tested in the main event itself.

Con - Unfortunately,
long playoffs have several practical difficulties:

·Long playoffs require an extra day, and the organizers
and players to plan months in advance for that day. The organizer must also
budget for it- money that might otherwise go toward the prize fund.

·Scheduling for players is a hassle if they don't know
for sure when they will be able to leave an event - i.e., it is typical that
they need to be back to their job the next day, etc.

·Trying to build it into the tournament itself is also
awkward. At the 2008 U.S. Senior Open the organizers took an event that used to
be a 6-SS, one round per day, and changed it to a 5-SS with the sixth day set
aside for possible playoffs. As it turned out, the playoffs weren't needed.
Thus one whole round was taken out of the main tournament, which could have
given a player a chance to come back from an early draw to catch the leader.

Second, a long playoff is not a full solution. These long
playoff games can also be tied - so then what happens? Further full-length
playoffs could last for days. Very few events could abide that. In this
situation you have to resort to other tiebreak methods anyway.

Conclusion - this
option should be preferred in the rare cases when time and money allow.

5)Delayed Full-Length
Playoffs - "A ‘Delayed' full-length playoff match would be ideal because it
is easier to schedule efficiently."

USCF President Bill Goichberg has advocated this idea, which
is that the tournament can be structured from the very beginning to generate
two "finalists" who will play a full-length multiple-game playoff match at a
later date (perhaps months later) in conjunction with another event.

Pro - The
advantage (as compared to immediate full-length playoffs, above) is that only
the two finalists would have to participate, and they would have time to make
their plans to do so, while the organizers have no more expense because the
match is in conjunction with another event that is happening anyway. So, all
the logistical and budgeting problems are minimized.

Con - The main
objection is that such a system still doesn't solve the problem under
discussion - what to do if the match is tied?

And also what happens if players tie for the right to be one
of these two finalists? That tie first has to be broken before the final match
is played.

Conclusion - This
system is preferable to a straight full-length playoff in many ways and might
be a good option for some major events. But its utility is limited and thus is
no more than a partial solution to be used only if rare circumstances allow.

6)Rapid or Blitz Playoffs
- "Rapid or Blitz Playoffs can be used to break ties, rather than leaving
it up to chance or tiebreak points."

Many official FIDE events use blitz for playoffs, in various
formats. It is not unusual as many critics claim. Benjamin points out they were
used in the old World Championship tournaments he was in: "I had three overtime matches: Zjvangtsev in 1996, Neilsen in 1998,
and Baklan in 2001. All matches went down to a sudden death blitz game,
and I lost all three. ... Even though losing was painful, I thought all the
matches were very fair and actually quite rewarding, though grueling, to play."
FIDE regulations give blitz playoffs as the only example. Blitz playoffs of
various sorts have been used in U.S. Championships since the late 1990s when
there was a movement away from having Co-Champions.

Pro - Blitz uses
chess as the basis for the tiebreak, which arguably is more natural (and more
exciting) from a sporting point of view than math tiebreaks, assuming
full-length playoffs aren't possible. It also is more likely to determine a
winner within a short amount of time. Greg Shahade points out that if players
know that blitz playoffs may decide a tournament, they have ample notice to
hone up on their blitz skills: " Why should Hikaru Nakamura not be
rewarded for playing hundreds of hours of blitz while another GM ignores it,
knowing full well that it may be used as a tiebreaker, as it has been for a
long time now?"

Con - Rapid/blitz
involves a different set of chess skills than tournament time controls. Thus
its use in playoffs might skew the result in favor of certain types of players.
Also, even blitz doesn't always determine a winner quickly because of the
possibility of continuing ties. The Zatonskih-Krush playoff went through four
rapid/blitz playoff games (nearly two hours) with the score still tied, which
in fact is not uncommon.

Conclusion - GMs Benjamin
and Seirawan agreed that most GMs prefer blitz to break ties. Certainly blitz
playoff games could form the backbone of any playoff system when longer
playoffs aren't possible, playing them in sets of two until there is a winner.
However, organizers do not like the "open-ended" timetable as there is no way
to predict how long the playoff will take. Thus, time constraints can motivate
organizers to set a limit for the number of rapid/blitz games and "force an
end" to the proceedings through the use of a sudden-death or Armageddon blitz
(as in Benjamin's example above). See next section.

7)Hybrid Rapid/Blitz,
with Armageddon or Sudden Death - "Rapid or Blitz Playoffs should be used,
with a final Armageddon game to force an end to continuing ties if necessary."

This format is perhaps the most common for the frequent
situations in which the organizers have limited time for a playoff (perhaps 2-4
hours). A series of rapid or blitz games are planned, in sets of two, and it is
hoped that they will determine a winner. If not, they force an end to the
playoff with either an Armageddon blitz game or a "sudden death" blitz series.

"Armageddon blitz" is played with white having a few minutes
more than black (the exact time amounts vary, but 7 to 5 is typical), and black
having draw odds. With no draw possible, it forces a winner.

"Sudden death" blitz (used previously in many FIDE World
Championship events) is a regular blitz game in which a coin is flipped to see
who gets white. The winner wins the playoff. If the game is drawn, another one
is played until there is a winner. (This also forces a winner, although it can
take many games if there are a lot of draws, and so it is less common than Armageddon)

Pro - A hybrid format
has a big advantage that, with a known maximum time required for playoffs, it
can be efficiently pre-scheduled by the organizer. The first set of games can
be a relatively slow time control, going then to faster rapid or blitz games or
a final Armageddon game only if necessary.

Hybrid formats seem to be well liked by top players such as
GM Joel Benjamin, who said, "I would recommend more rapid games w/increment
before getting to an Armageddon game. It would make sense to start the
last round in the morning to ensure more time for a playoff."

Con - This was the
format used for the 2008 U.S. Women's Championship, which came under great
criticism. After a set of rapid games and a set of blitz games that were split,
a final Armageddon game was played, and unfortunately it ended in a wild time
scramble that many felt was ugly . Many people object to the Armageddon
blitz on principle, from a purist standpoint. They also object that it is a
blitz game, and all blitz games have the above-mentioned problems. As John
Donaldson said, in such formats there seems to be "a tendency to
sacrifice a little bit of the integrity of chess."

Conclusions -
First, those who were turned off by the video of Zatonskih-Krush need to keep
in mind one thing - are you objecting to the Armageddon format itself, or to
the time-scramble? Time scrambles can be mitigated (and almost eliminated)
using a delay on the clock. Historically, Armageddon blitz games have not included a delay on the clock. We
followed that practice for this Zatonskih-Krush playoff. But this experience
makes it clear that at least a 3- second
delay should be included for Armageddon blitz, (and all playoff games), to
help mitigate the unsatisfactory nature of the kind of worst-case-scenario time
scramble on display in the video of that game. Such scrambles are okay for
blitz tournaments, but not for playoff games. (Delay clocks are better than
add-on clocks in this regard, by the way, as Goichberg points out. With add-on
the players are still tempted to move fast in order to accumulate time, but not
so with delay.) Delay can be included in blitz Armageddon games simply with an
appropriate alteration in the uneven starting times for the Armageddon players,
perhaps 6 to 4 instead of 7 to 5. Thus, the time scramble possibility inherent
in Armageddon play is not a argument against its use, as it can be greatly
reduced just as in blitz playoff games.

Use of delay clocks
for Armageddon games is one improvement that should be written into the
regulations, if nothing else.

As for the question of Armageddon versus "sudden death"
play, it isn't known how all players feel about it. Their opinions most likely
would be divided. Organizers clearly would prefer Armageddon, because sudden
death still has an indeterminate end point.

On the whole, hybrid rapid/blitz playoff systems (with delay
clocks) like this do work satisfactorily in the sense that they meet all the
needs of the players, sponsors, and organizers. Although they are not perfect,
and perhaps are in much need of some standardization, they provide an
"exciting" form of playoff that the general public can relate to, while at the
same time allow for efficient organization.

8)Full-Length "Short Formats" -

Is an ideal system that attempts to get the
best of both worlds - long playoff games played in a known time frame possible? Some think so, but it requires a way to deal with draws.

A relatively recent and interesting new trend in playoffs
are various proposals aimed at creating one- or two-game short playoffs that
will force a winner- while fitting the
time controls to the total amount of time available, thus making the playoff as
close to tournament conditions as possible.Unlike the Hybrid systems outlined above, which might use the
entire time available or only a fraction of it, these systems use all the time
to advantage. There are three basic kinds of proposals along these lines, which
I dub "Total Armageddon", the "Two-Game
Sudden Death Playoff" and the "One Game Showdown."

Two-Game Sudden Death
Playoff/One-Game Showdown

A very interesting system proposed by IM Larry Kaufman calls
for a match of no more than two games that uses all the time available. Here is
how Larry describes it:

"One normal game is played using half (or
perhaps 60% of) the available time, shared equally (color chosen by lot). If it
is decisive, that's it. If it ends in a draw, a second game is played in the
remaining time (again, time shared equally), BUT WITH THE SAME COLORS. However
this time black gets draw odds. I believe that this rule gives roughly equal
chances to black and white. GMs I've asked about it don't agree on which
color they would choose, which confirms that it is pretty fair."

A logical way to do it would be to allocate 50% of the time
for the first game, 40% for the second game, and 10% for a short break between
the two. Both games would have a 3-second delay. For example, if 3 hours
total time were available, the first game would be G/45 (half of the time = 90
minutes, split evenly for the two players), and the second game (if needed)
would be G/36, with an 18-minute break in between. If only one hour is
available, the times would be G/15 and G/12 with a 6-minute break.

I asked Larry why he thought this system was theoretically
fair. It
seems at first glance the first game favors white but the second game favors
black by a larger amount.

Larry replied, "It is fair because if White wins the first game, there
is no second game. Here is the math: I'll assume 40% chance of draw, 35% chance
of White win, 25% chance of Black win (this is roughly in line with experience
in master chess, though the percentage of draws rises with the level of the
players). White has a 35% chance to win outright in the first game, plus a (40%
x 35%) chance to draw and then win, for a total of 49%. That's about as close
to even as we can ask for. I admit that for a really high level game, say the
playoff for the overall US Championship, Black may have some edge."

IM
Greg Shahade proposes a creative tiebreak, the One Game Showdown which also limits the amount of
time needed for the tiebreak. He suggests a simple 60-minute game with an
increment. If one player wins, the tiebreak is over. A draw simply leads to a
reversal of colors-the clocks remain unchanged.

For
example, suppose both players start with 60 minutes (+ 3 second increment) for
the first game. Let's say the game ends in a draw with Player A (white) having
30 minutes left and Player B (black) 20 minutes left. Now another game is
played, players switching colors, with the clocks left unchanged. (B will have
white now, with 20 minutes, A will have black with 30 minutes).... and so on
until there is a winner. Since it is possible for a game to end in a draw
with only seconds left on the players clocks, a minimum start time could be
used - say 5 minutes.

Clearly
the player who starts with White has some advantage: Greg has two solutions for
this:

1.
The player with better tiebreaks begins with White so that the imbalance is
dictated by the tournament standing.

2.
Use a bidding system so the player with Black starts with more time
(similar to the "Total Armageddon" system).

Pro - The Two-Game
Sudden Death playoff has many advantages - it allows for two fairly long games
(rather than shorter rapid or blitz games), and it forces a winner in the
allotted time. If Kaufman's estimate of the balance is true, this system seems
fairer than Armageddon systems (see below), and since the games are longer it
minimizes the edge that blitz specialists have in rapid/blitz playoffs. It
works for any amount of time available, although maybe one hour should be
considered a minimum.

Note that it need not necessarily be used by itself but could also be
combined in hybrid form with other systems. For example, if a set of two
regular rapid games doesn't break the tie, the remaining time could be used for
a two-game sudden death set.

IM Greg Shahade's idea arose toward the end of the publication of this
article, so the GMs and TDs interviewed did not get a chance to comment on it.
It has many of the advantages but may need some testing and
tweaking.

Con - GM Joel
Benjamin said the Two Game Sudden Death Playoff sounded gimmicky but that "It
probably is fair, and if other players like it, that's fine by me." U.S. Chess
League commissioner IM Greg Shahade disagreed with Larry's idea on principle,
"I don't think an organizer should be the judge of what type of
system creates a fair chance for both players. If one player feels that having
White in the mentioned system is only 45% then that sucks that they should be
forced to have it just because a poll decided it was close to a 50-50
proposition. As much power as possible should be put in the players hands when
it comes to controlling their destiny."

Conclusion - The Two-Game
Sudden Death format is worth a try for playoff situations, especially those who
wish to avoid blitz. The One-Game Showdown idea needs further trouble-shooting.

Total Armageddon, (or
Long Armageddon)

This format was originated by Don Shultz (as far as I've
been able to determine) and was specified for use at this year's U.S. Senior
Open (although it wasn't actually used there, as there was no tie for first).
It basically uses the total amount of time available to play one big Armageddon
game.

The details of how it might work could be tweaked in various
ways. One approach is to give white and black proportional starting times on
the clock (plus a 3-second delay). For example, if the total time available was
3 hours, white could be assigned half of that (90 minutes) and black one third
of that (60 minutes), with black having draw odds in return for the time
deficit. If players determine these ratios aren't balanced, they could either
come up with better ones or they could use a bidding system (as Shultz
originally planned): White will get half the available time (90 minutes in this
case), and the two players then bid for how much time they would be willing to
start with in order to play black and have draw odds. Let's say the bid got
down to 64 minutes. The game would then be 90 minutes for white, 64 for black
(plus draw odds). (It is possible to have the bidding be for who will play
White, which is how Larry originally told it to me and how I explained it in
the Chess Life article I wrote on the
U.S. Championship, due out in August. But bidding for black is better.)

Pro - The
system fits into the amount of time available, while generating the
longest-possible game for that time.

Con -
Players are naturally skeptical about long Armageddon play, and not just
because it is untried. For instance, Joel Benjamin said, "I'm speaking only for myself, and other grandmasters may feel completely
differently. But my feeling is, if I'm in a playoff for something
important like the U.S. Championship title, I would want to play something that
most closely resembles chess. To me, a game where players have unequal amounts
of time and one player gets draw odds is far more bizarre than a thirty-minute
game. I think Armageddon is a gimmick that should be a last resort and
not a first resort." He adds that tired GMs facing a tough playoff would not
like the bidding concept, even if it theoretically creates a fair situation. IM
Greg Shahade agreed with Joel's line of reasoning, calling playing with draw
odds "sort of anti-chess."

Conclusion - This idea didn't get much traction among
the players I talked to. I personally think it would be worth a try, but at the
least it needs refinement and testing before it is used in a major
championship. It would be interesting to have an entire tournament played
using this format, in order to get some experience with it. A big advantage is
that such a format would lend itself very nicely to Wimbledon-style Elimination tournaments - a type of
tournament very popular with the general public, but which normally doesn't
work for chess due to the possibility of draws. But in this case, it would work
very well.

Multi-Player
Playoffs - One final issue:A weakness
of "playoff" forms of tiebreak is that they have difficulty with ties involving
3 or more players. If time is available, such playoffs could take the form of a
round robin between the tied players, as has been done in a few recent events,
such as the 2003 U.S. Women's Championship that had a 3-way blitz tournament
playoff. However, a simpler approach would be to use math tiebreaks to
determine a final two for a playoff, and my respondents had no problem with
that.

So, in view of the conclusions in the above analysis, a
logical proposal for chess playoffs would be as follows:

Proposal for Chess
Regulations-

Guidelines for Dealing with
Ties

·A tie for first place can be an acceptable result for
most chess tournaments. If it is a championship event, tied players may be
considered co-champions.

·However, if for any reason there is a desire to
determine a sole winner among tied players, the following guidelines are
recommended:

oThe organizers should publicize in advance the method
of breaking ties that will be used.

oIf there is a
sufficient time, a full-length playoff using time controls comparable to
those used in the main tournament itself may be used. Two-game mini-matches are
played at this time control to determine a winner. If the score is still tied,
more sets of such games can be played or one of the methods below can be used.
Such playoffs might require an extra day in the schedule. (If feasible, the
playoff could be delayed and held concurrent with a subsequent tournament.)

oIf there is SOME
time allocated for a playoff, (ideally at least 2-5 hours, but a minimum of
1 hour), there are two options for
abbreviated playoffs:

a.Rapid/Blitz Playoffs
- A series of two-game sets played at pre-announced rapid or blitz time
controls. All such games should have at least a 3-second delay on the clock
(delay, not add-on increment). If the first set is split, the next set is
played, etc., until there is a winner. Ideally, organizers will schedule as
many such sets as they can in the allotted time, perhaps starting with longer
time controls and getting quicker in subsequent sets. A final playoff game
should be scheduled to end the possibility of a continuing tie exceeding the
total time available - using either an Armageddon blitz game or a sudden death
series.

·A typical sudden death game would be 5 minutes each (+
3 second delay). If the game is drawn another sudden death game is immediately
played, switching colors, and so on until there is a winner.

b.Two-Game Sudden Death
- The entire time available for the playoff is used to play no more than two
playoff games. One player is given white (by any method of chance). If the
first game is decisive, the winner wins the playoff. If it is drawn, another
game is played, using the same colors,
in which black will have draw odds. The time allotment for the games is
relative to the total amount of time available for the playoff, using this
formula:

·50% of the time is used for the first game (divided
evenly between the two players, rounded up to the nearest minute). Players will
also have a 3 second delay on the clock.

·If necessary, after a short break of 10% of the time,
the remaining 40% is used for the final game, again divided evenly, with a 3
second delay. (The organizer may adjust these percentages as required.)

·For example, if 3 total hours are available, the first
game would be G/45 (+3), and after an 18-minute break, the second game would be
G/36 (+3).

oIf there are
more than two players involved in the tie, mathematical tiebreaks (see
below) can be used to reduce the players to two for a playoff, or if time
allows a round-robin rapid/blitz mini-tournament can be played between the tied
players (breaking further ties if necessary).

oIf there is NO
time for any playoffs, mathematical tiebreak systems should be used to
determine a winner in a Swiss-System or Round-Robin event. The order of tiebreaks
should be announced in advance. The recommended tiebreak methods are as
follows: [refer to existing recommendations already in the rulebook].

This system is straightforward and helpful to organizers,
while avoiding inflexibility. Notice how it uses the golf approach as a model -
providing options according to circumstance. An organizer can use these options
to decide how to schedule his event early in the planning stage.

Although the details here could be nitpicked by rules
lawyers, the basic point is that a set of clear-but-flexible guidelines like
this is useful and should be integrated into the chess regulations. I happen to
think this proposal would work very well, but if the rule committees see fit to
alter it, that is fine. The USCF and FIDE rule committees should seriously
consider the proposal.

Remember also it is not set in stone. If further experience
with long Armageddon games proves them to be fair and player-friendly, they
could be easily added to the regulations. Similarly, if testing of the new
Two-Game Sudden Death system shows problems, it could be either refined or
dropped. The guidelines may evolve over time in many ways.

Conclusion - The
Value of Guidelines and Consistency

One organizer told me the attempt to create playoff
guidelines is useless, because in the end it all must come down to what the
sponsor wants. But as long as the guidelines are "recommendations" and have
flexibility, they can be very useful to help an organizer with planning.

There is also value in having some consistency and
standardization among the systems that we have in use for chess events. An
outside observer looking at international chess and the myriad tournament
forms, time controls, and championship systems we currently use might easily
conclude it is all chaos. The variety of tiebreak systems one sees in these
events, and total lack of guidelines in FIDE or USCF rules, serves only to
increase this feeling of anarchy. Having guidelines to provide more consistency
would help reduce that appearance to the public and would be to the advantage
of the sport of chess.
Tom Braunlich's article on the U.S. Championship appears in the August Chess Life which will be available on uschess.org tomorrow. Look for responses and feedback on this article, including possible reactions from delegates and committees at the U.S. Open next week (Dallas, August 2-11.)